Studies in the Geography of Ancient and Medieval India c12.28

c12.28

There have been some comments¹ on our views regarding the identification of the Kuntala and Aśmaka countries.² An attempt has been made to prove that ‘Kuntala in ancient times did not comprise only the North Kanara District and parts of Mysore, Belgaon and Dharwar Districts as stated by Dr. Sircar but that it extended much further to the north so as to include what we now call the Southern Marāṭhā Country.’ Unfortunately it has not been noticed that practically the same view has been expressed by many other writers including Fleet³ and ourselves.⁴ The fact is that where other scholars would locate, according to evidence, the Kuntala country proper in the heart of the Kanarese area and distinguish between that land and the later empire (often called Kuntala) of the imperial Kuntala or Karṇāṭa (i.e. Kanarese) dynasties, our critic would place Kuntala proper in the Marāṭhā country and would not distinguish the essential Kuntala country from the gigantic Kuntala or Kanarese empire of later times. If, in the days of Warren Hastings, the Banaras District formed a part of Bengal, would it justify any one to identify Bengal with Banāras or to locate Bengal in Banāras? The name Vaṅgāla (Bengal) originally indicated a small district in Southern Bengal; it was later used to signify the whole country comprising such ancient lands as Vaṅga, Samaṭaṭa, Suhma, Tāmralipta, Gauḍa and Puṇḍravardhana. Can we locate the ancient Vaṅgāla country in any part of later Vaṅgāla (Bengal) It will be clear we like?